Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of foam sclerotherapy for venous disease of the lower limbs

Background: Foam sclerotherapy is a potential treatment for lower limb venous disease. Methods: A systematic review, with no restriction on study design, to assess the safety and efficacy of foam sclerotherapy. Results: 69 studies were included. For serious adverse events including pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, the median event rates were less than 1%. Median rate for visual disturbance was 1.4%. Median rates for some other adverse events were more common, including headache (4.2%), thrombophlebitis (4.7%), matting/skin staining/pigmentation (17.8%) and pain at the site of injection (25.6%). Median rate for complete occlusion of treated veins was 87.0% and for recurrence or development of new veins was 8.1%. Evidence from meta-analysis for complete occlusion suggests that foam sclerotherapy is associated with a lower rate compared with surgery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10) and a higher rate compared with liquid sclerotherapy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.11). However, there was substantial heterogeneity across the studies in the meta-analysis. Conclusion: Serious adverse events were rare. There is insufficient evidence to reliably compare the effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy with other minimally invasive therapies or surgery. Evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is required.This manuscript is based on a systematic review commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) through its Interventional Procedures Programme. The Health Services Research Unit is supported by a core grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Foam sclerotherapy (foam) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) have emerged as alternative treatments to surgery for patients with varicose veins, but uncertainty exists regarding their effectiveness in the medium to longer term. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam, EVLA and surgery for the treatment of varicose veins. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) without blinding, and economic modelling evaluation. SETTING: Eleven UK specialist vascular centres. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients with primary varicose veins (foam, n = 292; surgery, n = 294; EVLA, n = 212). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised between all three treatment options (eight centres) or between foam and surgery (three centres). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs. RESULTS: The results appear generalisable in that participants' baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈ 5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p < 0.005) were greater for EVLA than for foam (EQ-5D, p = 0.004). There were fewer procedural complications in the EVLA group (1%) than after foam (7%) and surgery (8%) (p < 0.001). Participants returned to a wide range of behaviours more quickly following foam or EVLA than following surgery (p < 0.05). There were no differences in VCSS between the three treatments. Truncal ablation rates were higher for surgery (p < 0.001) and EVLA (p < 0.001) than for foam, and were similar for surgery and EVLA. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of both the 6-month clinical outcomes and the estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness suggest that EVLA should be considered as the treatment of choice for suitable patients. FUTURE WORK: Five-year trial results are currently being evaluated to compare the cost-effectiveness of foam, surgery and EVLA, and to determine the recurrence rates following each treatment. This trial has highlighted the need for long-term outcome data from RCTs on QoL, recurrence rates and costs for foam sclerotherapy and other endovenous techniques compared against each other and against surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51995477. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Systematic review, network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness model of randomized trials of minimally invasive techniques versus surgery for varicose veins

Background A Health Technology Assessment was conducted to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques (foam sclerotherapy (FS), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)) for managing varicose veins, in comparison with traditional surgery. Methods A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques compared with other treatments, principally surgical stripping, in terms of recurrence of varicose veins, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), pain and quality of life. Network meta-analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling were performed. Results The literature search conducted in July 2011 identified 1453 unique citations: 31 RCTs (51 papers) satisfied the criteria for effectiveness review. Differences between treatments were negligible in terms of clinical outcomes, so the treatment with the lowest cost appears to be most cost-effective. Total FS costs were estimated to be lowest, and FS was marginally more effective than surgery. However, relative effectiveness was sensitive to the model time horizon. Threshold analysis indicated that EVLA and RFA might be considered cost-effective if their costs were similar to those for surgery. These findings are subject to various uncertainties, including the risk of bias present in the evidence base and variation in reported costs. Conclusion This assessment of currently available evidence suggests there is little to choose between surgery and the minimally invasive techniques in terms of efficacy or safety, so the relative cost of the treatments becomes one of the deciding factors. High-quality RCT evidence is needed to verify and further inform these findings